Hi Mike,
The prosecution keeps trying to make its case...
Assange so far has managed to prevent them from making it.

That is up to him of course, that is the strategy he has decided
upon...rather than face a trial, about which he vehemently protests his
innocence. He has chosen the option of using the law of diplomatic
immunity to jump out of the legal jurisdiction of the arrest warrant.
Such an action has its own set of consequences. If one avoids due
process of law, then there is no such concept as arbitrary detention or
proceedings or arrest applicable. The action he took was deliberate
with the intention of avoiding the legal process. He can easily
overcome his voluntary detention, by leaving the embassy. True, he will
be arrested and returned to Sweden for further investigation and perhaps
trial.

The reasons he gives for not giving himself up, is because he won't have
a fair trial in Sweden and he fears that the US will extradite him to
the USA, for further legal proceedings concerning other matters. Those
fears may or may not be well-founded, but should the women complainants
in Sweden be denied justice because of his fears...Something wrong
there...the advocacy and promotion of human rights is unconditional...is
it not?
If that be true, why didn't the USA apply for extradition proceedings
when he was in detention in the UK?

The legal definition of rape is the penetration of the human penis one
inch into the vagina, without the consent, continuing and ongoing of the
woman.

He has also made certain depositions regarding the cases which contain
admissions and concurrence of facts, which I cannot find at the
moment...but if one looks hard enough, because one is interested enough,
then they will be there. You can read the depositions which Assange made
during his appeals against the warrant of extradition. I am not saying
here that because of those admissions he is guilty, merely, that he has
a case to answer.
Surprise sex indeed...:-) . Nuffink wrong with a bit o' surprising sex
first thing in the morning...washed or unwashed...eh...:-) . Might be
worthwhile to read the women's depositions an all...
ATB
Dougie

First, I should say I don't know what actually happened with Assange and
that woman and won't really come to any sort of conclusion until if/when
the prosecution tries to make its case. Until then we get to hear Assange's
defense but not so much from the prosecution, so the data that I have only
tells one side of the story. Nor does questioning him or even criticizing
him detract from acknowledging the good he's done. The bad doesn't wash out
the good, nor the good the bad. We're all heavily flawed and Assange is no
different.

Second, I should clarify one thing that I think the Western media may have
gotten consistently wrong: *it's my understanding* from the Swedish papers
that Assange isn't accused of rape - he's accused of something that
translates roughly as "sex by surprise" - in other words, sex without
affirmative consent but without physical resistance or refusals. NOTE: This
is my memory from when it first began to unfold and was first in the
Swedish papers. *It's possible this is out of date*, and if so please
kindly correct my good faith error. The reason I'm pointing it out is that
the sex by surprise charge is more of a gray area and may explain why
there's disagreement over whether Assange raped her or not (yes, I'm aware
of the statement that the police made it up).

TBH, I'm a little confused as well (but not surprised, UN's decision was a
foregone conclusion when Assange asked for it).

Assange seems to have evidence to exonerate himself, so why not go to trial
and demand international observers or UN involvement? Arbitrary detainment
also requires a lack of due process, which Assange has had. The continued
and unnecessary negotiations about allowing the Swedes to interview him in
the Ecuadorian embassy seems like he may be foiling the

What *really* confuses me though is the ACLU's statement that "In light of
this decision, it’s clear that any criminal charges against Mr. Assange in
connection with Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and
*unconstitutional*. "

I'm not sure how the ACLU got there. It was a UN panel decision which a UN
rep said is "indirectly binding". The decision involves the U.K., Sweden
and Ecuador. The U.S. isn't even involved and the potential charges and
actual investigation are completely unrelated to the rape and sexual
assault charges. If someone wants to argue that they are related, then the
argument will almost surely be that the rape and sexual assault charges
were simply to get at him for the real espionage-related (broadly speaking)
charges.